Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals in this criminal case and vacated both of Defendant's convictions for two marijuana-related fifth-degree controlled substance offenses, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.One of Defendant's convictions was based on Defendant's alleged possession of approximately three pounds of plant material that the State asserted was marijuana, and the other conviction was based on Defendant's alleged possession with intent to sell one or more vaporizer cartridges filled with a liquid mixture containing THC. The court of appeals (1) reversed Defendant's conviction for possession of the plant material on the grounds that a 2019 amendment to the definition of marijuana in Minn. Stat. 152.01, subd. 9 explicitly excluded "hemp"; and (2) upheld Defendant's second conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) properly held that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the plant material possessed by Defendant was marijuana as defined by the amended statute; but (2) erred in concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that the liquid mixture in the vaporizer cartridges was a prohibited schedule I controlled substance. View "State v. Loveless" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the restitution order issued by the district court in Defendant's criminal case, holding that Minn. Stat. 611A.045, subd. 3(a) imposes no burden on the State to prove a defendant's income, resources, and obligations.Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree unintentional felony murder. As part of his sentence, the district court ordered him to pay $7,500 in restitution for the victim's funeral expenses. Defendant filed a motion to relieve his restitution obligation, arguing that under section 611A.045, subd.1(a)(2) a district court is required to consider the defendant's income, resources, and obligations. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the State does not bear the burden of producing evidence of or proving a defendant's ability to pay restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State's statutory burden under Minn. Stat. 611A.045, subd.3(a) does not require the State to prove that the defendant is able to pay restitution based on his or her income, resources, and obligations. View "State v. Cloutier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this criminal case to the court of appeals for a decision on the merits, holding that the State can appeal the dismissal of the charges against Defendant under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subdivision 1(1).After the State charged Defendant with second-degree criminal sexual conduct he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The State appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the district court's order was not appealable under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the merits, holding that the district court's order was appealable because the dismissal was not premised solely on a factual determination. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's request for postconviction relief, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict of possession of shoplifting gear under Mo. Rev. Stat. 609.521(b).Appellant was detained by police after employees from a retail clothing store called the police with suspicions that Appellant was shoplifting. A search revealed pieces of aluminum foil in Appellant's possession, some of which were wrapped around security sensors attached to items of unpurchased merchandise. A jury found Appellant guilty of violating section 609.521(b). Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the foil was not "an instrument designed to assist in shoplifting or defeating an electronic article surveillance system under the possession of shoplifting gear statute. The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Appellant's conviction. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the State prohibiting the district court from enforcing a "taint team" order, holding that the district court erred in concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was implicated in this case.Appellant, a juvenile at the time of his offense, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of release. After Miller v. Alabama, 467 U.S. 460 (2012), was decided, Appellant was granted resentencing. At issue during the hearing was copies of recorded calls made by Appellant while he was incarcerated. The district court ordered the State to use a taint team to review the recorded calls for attorney-client communications on the ground that Appellant's the constitutional right to counsel was implicated. The court of appeals granted the State's petition for a writ prohibiting the court from enforcing the taint team order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that relief was not warranted because (1) the Sixth Amendment was not implicated here; and (2) the State would be injured and without any adequate remedy to correct the unauthorized action of the court. View "State v. Flowers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions for driving after cancellation-inimical to public safety (DAC-IPS) based on the conclusion that Minn. Stat. 171.24, subd. 5 is unenforceable on private property, holding that the statute is enforceable on private property.Defendant, whose license was cancelled as inimical to public safety, was charged with DAC-IPS after a law enforcement officer observed him drive a motor vehicle down a private driveway. Defendant filed a motion to suppress and to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. The district court denied the motions. The district court subsequently found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the DAC-IPS requires a license only when a vehicle is operated on a street or highway. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the DAC-IPS statute is enforceable in private property; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendant's motions to suppress and dismiss, resulting in restatement of Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Velisek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits after the date on which he no longer had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by a licensed professional using the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).From 2007 to 2020 Claimant was employed as a Mower County Deputy Sheriff. From September 25, 2019 to March 30, 2021, Claimant had a diagnosis of PTSD by a licensed professional, making him eligible for workers' compensation benefits. In this action, Claimant argued that he was entitled to benefits after March 30, 2021, the date that he no longer had a diagnosis of PTSD, because he remained disabled from a mental illness. The compensation court awarded benefits from April 1, 2020 into the present. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Claimant was not entitled to benefits after March 30, 2021. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits after March 30, 2021. View "Chrz v. Mower County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree assault-fear, holding that the district court committed reversible error when it relied on the doctrine of transferred intent.The Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that the district court (1) did not violate the accomplice-corroboration statute, Minn. Stat. 634.04, when it found that Defendant committed the murder with premeditation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence Defendant proffered to impeach one of the State's witnesses; but (3) committed reversible error by relying on the doctrine of transferred intent to find Defendant guilty of second-degree assault-fear. View "State v. Spann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this lawsuit brought by Appellants seeking a declaration "that individuals are restored to civil rights and possess the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by [Minn. Const. art. VII] by virtue of being released or excused from incarceration following a felony," holding that there was no error.At issue before the Supreme Court was (1) whether Minn. Const. art. VII, 1 requires that a person convicted of a felony be restored to the right to vote upon being released or excused from incarceration; and (2) whether Minn. Stat. 609.165 is contrary to the fundamental right to vote or to equal protection protections under the state Constitution. The Supreme Court held (1) under article VII, section 1, a person convicted of a felony cannot vote in Minnesota unless his or her right to vote is restored in accordance with an affirmative act or governmental mechanism restoring the person's right to vote; and (2) section 609.165 does not violate the fundamental right to vote, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that the statute violates the Minnesota Constitution's equal protection principle. View "Schroeder v. Simon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court to allow a witness to testify using live, two-way remote view technology during a jury trial in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated in the proceedings below.During Defendant's jury trial on a third-degree sale of a controlled substance charge, the district court allowed one of the State's witness to testify via Zoom because she had been exposed to COVID-19 and was forced to quarantine. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the two-part test set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), is the appropriate test to assess whether a Confrontation Clause violation under the federal or state constitutions; and (2) Defendant's right to confrontation under the federal and state constitutions when the district court permitted the witness to testify using remote view technology under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Tate" on Justia Law